They aren't debates. In a real debate, a real moderator has real power, authority, and intelligence. Journalists are just lazy hacks who copy and paste from the unionized Associated Press or make up stories and facts.

What is her record anyway? In the debate she claimed that unnamed, unnumbered and unknown military personnel opposed the President in Afghanistan and Libya but presented no actual proof though implying that somehow this disproved VP Biden's point. Journalists don't present the truth, they present drama to generate ratings. Not knowing this, seems just plain stupid.

What is her record anyway? In the debate she claimed that unnamed, unnumbered and unknown military personnel opposed the President in Afghanistan and Libya but presented no actual proof though implying that somehow this disproved VP Biden's point. Journalists don't present the truth, they present drama to generate ratings. Not knowing this, seems just plain stupid.

Her record is she's spent most of the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq covering the wars and the closest I remember her saying to what you suggest was when she quoted a single unnamed combat veteran who hated the tone of the ads he or she was seeing.

That said, I shouldn't have called your comment stupid and I apologize for that.

I believe that according to the rules you can call a comment stupid, just not the person. I understand the distinction and my skin is thick. It was during the portion of the debate where they were arguing about Libya. My problem with journalists is that they get to make claims based on no presentable evidence. When Biden and Ryan disagreed on the "fighting season" why didn't she step in with her expertise?

I'm guessing because she'd have needed a mortar round. There are plenty of examples when I might have wanted the moderator to do something other than she did, but I thought she did better than most and I really appreciated her pushing for details.

I still apologize for calling the comment stupid, but I thanks for the slack.

This independent voter thinks Biden won. It's very hard to fake actual expertise and Biden came off as someone who has been studying government for a long time while I thought Ryan, except on tax policy where he was great, seemed like he was talking to a Republican rally, unprepared for challenge. But I much preferred his manners.

True story, Hedgie. When I lived in Atlanta I was once held up at gunpoint. Fifteen minutes later, after talking the mugger into putting away his gun because I wasn't going to give him any money, I was giving him advice and he was thanking me. The lesson is, I will not give you my wallet, but with a gun to my head I'm at least friendly.

Mr Ryan is more like a "dunk tank" rather than a think tank. He ignores all of history for some delusion that the middle class majority is somehow going to go after the middle class majority like some space alien conspiracy. Does Mr Ryan understand how democracy works? This isn't a dictatorship, although I do understand that Republicans think they are King Ding Dongs.

When all the chaff lies cut on the floor and the kernel is exposed, Ryan acts like governance is some kind of video game, a world populated only by numbers that get cut, not real people who get hurt. I will leave aside for the time being Ryan’s particularly disturbing opinion that beyond 2014 more Americans than Afghans should die defending their own country. I will also leave aside the devastating effect the Ryan budget would have on America’s most vulnerable citizens, because I would like to talk for just a minute about the bold faced lie that is the 20% tax cut, a policy TE has rightly called “…sheer tomfoolery… Mr Romney knows his numbers don't work, but he keeps insisting with bald-faced insouciance that they do, and using the most transparent used-car-salesman-style obfuscation to evade the question.”

Does anybody really believe that at a time of rising expenses the solution is to have those with the most contribute less? Having trouble making ends meet? Cut expenses. Fine idea. Get a second job that increases revenues. Good idea. Get a better job that pays more. Great idea. Cut your own pay. Terrible idea. Quit your job and take one that pays less. Downright Idiotic. But Romney and Ryan keep selling it, or as TE concludes:

"This kind of sophomoric mathematical double-talk wouldn't have fooled investors in Mr Romney's Bain Capital funds for a second. It does seem to be fooling a fair number of journalists and voters, though." We'll see.

"Ryan acts like governance is some kind of video game, a world populated only by numbers that get cut, not real people who get hurt."

Aside from the fact that his budget balances the budget in 2040 and Obama's does in 2042 (that's a REAL big difference, isn't it?), this is exactly how you have to look at the world. Would you rather all the poor get a little bit of something so they can maintain getting benefits, or getting a larger amount now in exchange for nothing in the future?

Both candidates granted that Medicare will be insolvent in four to twelve years. Social Security has three more decades at best. Reforms need to be done. Meaningful ones. I'm not saying such reform is going to come from Paul Ryan (because it's not) -- but it has to be done, and done solely by looking at the numbers, not the people.

The VP debate was more satisfying than the Presidential debate mainly because Ryan at least tried to hold on to his professed principles, unlike the totally unprincipled Romney who kept popping in wearing different masks to baffle his opponent. Of course, this was the downfall of Ryan, since he was condemned to defending the indefensible, a revenue-neutral budget with tax cuts across the board and more military spending, all to be paid for by “closing loopholes”, which, alas, he is not in a position to identify. These unspecified loopholes add up to the biggest hole in the Romney-Ryan economic plan.

The person next to a president should be calm and collective in contrast the same person is not the person the president should bring to bar fight. Mr. Biden acted like the crazy uncle you see once a year at a family reunion a know it all that never listens to anyone except the sound of his own voice. In truth I sure hope Mr. Biden never has to represent the US in amoment of serious crisis.

Actually during a presidential campaign that is EXACTLY who the person next to the president should be. Why do you think Biden's antics during a televised partisan debate would relate to how he would handle a moment of crisis?

If you are implying that we should trust a 40 year senator "career politician" with zero experience in the real world and part of a broken down political system. I have to say good luck to you because you are yet to understand the real problems of the US. You should not look at the problems we rae facing from the eyes of a Democrat or the eyes of a Republican but from the eyes of a concern US citizen if you happen to be lucky enough to be one.

"picked up points for a wonkish mastery of federal taxation, spending and entitlement programmes (with a special bonus for using the phrase “income-adjusted premium support payments” on live television)."

If anything, he sounded confused at best. Couldn't or refused to name one loophole; didn't explain how a permium support plan would save constrain costs and save money, aside from some platitudes. I think the author is letting biases slip into the writing.

The last sentence is completely true. And remains so. Obama will have to do better next time to show he doesn't need training wheels. Now I heard the next format is weird - community style meeting, but for foreign affairs?

For all of the hoo-ha ing going on here about "My guy won" "No you idiot, my guy did!", it is remarkable that all of the hoo ha ers think that the bickering going on here is going to have even the smallest impact on the people with whom you're arguing. YOU WILL NOT CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND HERE. Those reading here, and especially commenting, are so devoted to their candidate that even if their guy lets out a loud flatulant and a curse word and a lie to follow are not going to be disuaded by it. Reading political articles is dumb for the sole reason that unless you live in one of the few swing states, your passionate defense and preaching of your candidate will have as much of an impact on the presidential race as someone yelling at the umpire while watching the Yankee game at home on your TV.
The majority of the people who are still undecided are probably not reading the Economist, they're reading People magazine. And thus will never see your impassioned plea for them to wake up and smell the roses. Not that your impassioned plea (sarcastically insulting the other candidate) would have any impact on them anyway.
Rather than "My guy won, the other guy is a donkey!" "No, your guy is a loser and a liar!" Give some substantiation as to why your opinion matters and how it will impact Americans. The WHY, the impact is what convinces, not the WHAT. That might have more sway over the people on the other side of the aisle than insulting them and their mother with the same fluff that has been on news channels for several months.
This campaign will most likely be decided over which dumb commercials, throwing all kinds of lies around, ring better with those watching them in Ohio. How sad that the future of America hinges on this.

In the hopes of spurring some kind of thought-provoking intellectual debate rather than this mindless mud-slinging drivel which we already get plenty of from both political parties. Doesn't seem to be working though.

I love this: if the economist defends republicans its because theyre a neocon publication thats owned by the dredges of finance and the republican agenda, if it defends the democrats its because theyre pinko socialists from europe bent on destroying the united states. Cant we anonymously pretend to get along?

"As expected, his Republican challenger, Paul Ryan, picked up points for a wonkish mastery of federal taxation, spending and entitlement programmes (with a special bonus for using the phrase “income-adjusted premium support payments” on live television)."

If wonkish mastery is stubbornly avoiding any specific explanation of how his numbers will add up, sure Ryan really schooled everyone last night.

Will WW (er, I mean, Lexington) just get it over with and propose to Ryan already?

"Being neutral" : that is the name of the disease many in the mainstream media in America have contracted :
- Little or no fact-checking
- Don't challenge the powerful
- The Democrats say this, the Republicans say that ; hence, you're a "centrist" or "a moderate" if you think the right way to go is to choose a policy that combines both political approaches to a given problem
- Please do not mention the fact that the political spectrum in America has shifted massively to the right over the last 30 years

So please Lexington, don't go in that direction by calling this debate a draw. After Obama's poor performance the other day, Biden shredded Ryan on almost every subject.

By calling it a draw, you're helping to spread the disease that made it possible for the poor - not poverty, the poor -, climate change, surveillance programs and drone strikes NOT to be mentioned a SINGLE time - including, and most significantly, by the anchor - during the whole debate.

Really? Biden clearly won. How can you say that Ryan really convinced anyone that his policies would help those that need it? Who with the slightest ability to do simple math can buy what he is selling?

Those who have determined the age of the earth by counting generations in the Bible [and have to fudge even that by making some live for hundreds of years] and who want to replace science classes with Bible classes, are in control of the GOP. You are surprised by ignorance of science and math there?

I watched on CNN and they were tracking the positive and negative responses of undecided voters (aka clueless idiots) and what I noticed was that whenever one of the candidates talked about facts there was a flat line. Whenever they got emotional and subjective, the audience loved it.

Are you kidding? She asked how the candidates' "Catholic faith" would influence their Presidency. Separation of Church and State makes such a question outrageous. Moreover, she focused way too much on foreign policy. Romney and the President are debating that next week. I propose they scrap that topic and focus on the economy instead.

First of all, I doubt she was in complete control of the questions she asked - I was thinking more of the way she kept those boys in line. Secondly, there's nothing outrageous about the QUESTION, only potentially about the answer - which makes it a defensible question.

Tonight's debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues. And I'm going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic, since that is what a vice president or president would have to do.

But it was only Biden who stated unequivocal unwillingness to use the power of government to compel those who don't share his faith to comply with the dictates of his faith. If you really examine Ryan's words, he is willing to use the power of government to compel those who don't share his faith to comply with its dictates. Only one party is offering us candidates who actually understand what separation of church and state actually means. The other party's candidates believe in a "strict construction" of the Constitution, except when it would interfere with their desire to use the power of government to enforce religious dictates. It sure sounds to me like Romney and Ryan would be more comfortable in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Americans may want answers on the economy. But in the real world the President has far, far more influence over foreign affairs than he does over what happens in the economy. The Congress can trash the economy (or not), but the President's influence is pretty limited there.

He did not pick up points on taxation because he voted for all the bills he attacked. Also, closing loopholes is not a realistic answer for finding hundreds of billions of dollars to cut taxes, reduce spending, and save Social Security and Medicare. He was repeatedly asked the question without answering what loopholes and he did not give any answer on what loopholes Romney planned to close.

I am a Republican, and thought Biden was a bit rude and over-the-top. Not an Al Gore weirdness, or LBJ rudeness - Maybe more like Hunter S. Thompson's description of Ed Muskie?

However, I thought Biden won with a slight edge.

Ryan has to get a better rap on the tax loopholes to be closed to be honest. Also, the medicare plan seems like it could lead to the worst of all worlds - Diluted negotiation power of the government while failing to help recipeints keep abreast of rising medical costs.

When you say that "Ryan has to get a better rap on the tax loopholes to be closed", you imply that he maybe explained it but not clearly enough. The truth is that he doesn't have an answer.

I think he just counts that people will only hear: 20%, no increase for middle class, close loopholes. Most of the people don't go on the Economist forum to discuss details.

Biden was right, not mathematically possible..but who would bother to check the numbers...Ryan is a tax code wonk, so he should know what he's talking about.
You, as a Republican, should demand from him an answer to this question. Don't just brush it off as "he could have done better job explaining".

Joe Biden has more experience in politics than any of the candidates. Why is it "all the more baffling and inexcusable" that he did well compared to the President with his relatively little experience?

Biden took the night. His grinning and chuckling were appropriate. Laughable is what you'd call Congressman Ryan's math and reasoning. The only way this was a draw is if you count half-truths and out-right lies as punches. I hope Biden grins all the way back to the White House.

Right, I kind of wish before writing a column reviewing a debate, columnists including our friend Lexington would declare whether they are evaluating how they think the polls will be affected or who they think made a better case. The polls show Ryan narrowly won, but I thought Biden won the argument in a romp.

The reality is that Biden did well on the foreign policy topics because the Obama administration has done a great job on foreign policy. Domestic policy and the economy is the Obama administration's weakness, and hence Ryan had plenty of ammo to criticize Biden on the domestic issues.

That's also why Romney trounced Obama in the first debate. Obama and Biden really can't effectivly defend their record on the economy. In upcoming debates on foreign policy, Obama will fair much better. He can certainly brag about his great work on foreign policy (while pointing out how horrendous W's foreign policy was).

Pres. Obama has no magic wand. The messes in foreign policy, and no less in domestic matters, were so horrendous they couldn't be cleaned up in three years. One reason why the Bushes were not invited to the GOP convention was to not remind the voters of why the economy is in such bad shape and who was most to blame. Should the blame fall where deserved, not only would Pres. Obama get two more years, he would also get a Democratic House and Senate.